from the or-it-will-cost-us-$100-trillion dept

A couple of years ago we wrote about how the patent system creates perverse incentives for companies that make antibiotics to exploit them as fully as possible while they are still under patent. That, in its turn, drives antibiotic resistance, which is becoming an extremely serious problem. At the end of our previous post, we noted that this situation would be a perfect opportunity to try something different, such as offering some form of prize to pharmaceutical companies that come up with new antibiotics. Remarkably, the UK government's Review on Antimicrobial Resistance (pdf) has just suggested exactly that:

we want to make antibiotics R&D commercially sustainable so that the field can attract the best minds from research organisations, small biotech companies, large firms or not-for-profit entities. To do that we propose a system by which a global organisation has the authority and resources to commit lump-sum payments to successful drug developers. Payment would have to be set against selective criteria agreed in advance. Such an approach would 'de-link' the profitability of a drug from its volume of sales, supporting conservation goals by eliminating the commercial imperative for a drug company to sell new antibiotics in large quantities -- a key factor in contributing to the development and spread of resistance.

As that notes, the key to this approach is to "de-link" profitability from sales volume so there is no business pressure to over-use new antibiotics. One way to do that is to offer not a patent, but a hefty lump sum to any company that comes up with a new antibiotic. Another benefit is that the scale of the money on offer -- around $2 billion per new antibiotic -- is likely to encourage participation from companies all around the world, especially startups, since the scheme would be open to all. The UK review suggests supporting innovative approaches directly:

A global AMR [antimicrobial resistance] Innovation Fund of around 2 billion USD over 5 years would help boost funding for blue-sky research into drugs and diagnostics, and get more good ideas off the ground. Big pharma should have a role in paying for this innovation fund: it needs to look beyond short-term assessments of profit and loss, and act with ‘enlightened self-interest’ in tackling AMR, recognising that it has a long term commercial imperative to having effective antibiotics, as well as a moral one.

The 44-page document goes into more detail about the thinking behind the proposed scheme, how it might be implemented in practice, and the problems it would face. It's a bold approach, but given the continuing failure of the current patent-based system to come up with new antibiotics, it's one that governments around the world need to consider seriously. After all, as the review warns:

if we fail to act on AMR, then an additional 10 million lives would be lost each year to drug-resistant strains of malaria, HIV, TB, and certain bacterial infections by 2050, at a cost to the world economy of 100 trillion USD.

Compared to that figure, the few tens of billions of dollars needed to implement the new approach has to be a bargain.

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Science isn't glamorous. It says a lot when kids these days are more familiar with Mark Zuckerberg than they are with Albert Einstein, Charles Darwin, Louis Pasteur, Thomas Edison, or Isaac Newton. So, what better way to inspire and encourage scientists than to recognize and reward them for their innovative work with huge cash prizes? Here are just a few examples of some lucrative science prizes that are being awarded to exceptional researchers.

from the die-rachel-from-cardholder-services,-die dept

We mentioned last fall that the FTC had declared "Rachel from Cardholder Services" as enemy number one -- referencing the all too common spammy robocaller scams that many of us have received on our phones. It has now awarded two $25,000 prizes out of 744 entries in ways to help block such robocalls.

According to the FTC, Serdar Danis and Aaron Foss will each receive $25,000 for their proposals, which both use software to intercept and filter out illegal prerecorded calls using technology to "blacklist" robocaller phone numbers and "whitelist" numbers associated with acceptable incoming calls. Both proposals also would filter out unapproved robocallers using a CAPTCHA-style test to prevent illegal calls from ringing through to a user.

Of course, now the followup questions: will these solutions actually be put in place and work? And how long will it take for robocallers to route around these solutions?

from the seems-like-a-good-idea dept

There's been a growing movement among some to suggest that it would be a lot more practical and useful for students to learn how to code as a part of their education, rather than some other "mandatory" curriculum items. It looks like the House of Representatives is working on a cool little plan to at least incentivize some code learning in schools: a nationwide technology contest for students, encouraging them to develop brand new apps for mobile devices. The hope is that it will help more students not just learn to code, but to learn that they enjoy it and are interested in learning more and going into the technology field. While this may be a "small" program, it's good to see general encouragement towards having people learn to code at a young age.

On the other end of the spectrum, three of Silicon Valley's richest techies, Mark Zuckerberg, Sergey Brin and Yuri Milner, have teamed up for a much larger program a "Breakthrough Prize" for life sciences that will award 11 grants of $3 million each year for major breakthroughs in science.

These are two different approaches towards encouraging more innovation in technology and sciences -- one at the "low" end and one at the "high" end -- but it will be interesting to watch how these kinds of incentive programs develop over time. It would be great to also see more "innovation prizes" that offer up rewards for reaching specific goals, rather than the sort of random "we pick a list of winners" that the Breakthrough Prize functions under. Still, more incentives for innovation can only be a good thing.

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The Olympic games publicize the physical achievements of athletes, but what about the notable achievements of scientists? It's somewhat hard to cheer for individuals working on fundamental research, but sometimes scientists get some well-deserved recognition. There are other prizes besides the Nobel, and here are just a few international awards for smart folks working on scientific endeavors.

from the monopolies-don't-lower-prices dept

Of all the dysfunctional parts of the patent system, drug patents are arguably the worst, since the exorbitant prices that patent monopolies allow mean that millions of people simply cannot afford medicines that would keep them alive or would improve their quality of life substantially.

One riposte to this criticism is that such high prices are needed in order to pay for costly research, but as Techdirt has noted before, that's just a myth. Another is that even if the system has its problems, there's no other way. But there is. In both the US and EU, the idea of replacing pharma patents with pharma prizes is gaining adherents.

I introduced a bill in the Senate that would test this new approach on drugs developed to treat one disease: HIV/AIDS. The measure (S. 1138) would eliminate legal barriers to generic competition for HIV/AIDS drugs and reward innovation directly, through a $3 billion a year prize fund.

< ...>

The prizes would be funded by the federal government and private health insurers in an amount proportionate to their share of the HIV/AIDs drug market.

Sanders claims the savings would significant: he hopes that the $10 billion US market for AIDS drugs could be supplied at generic prices for between $500 million to $1.5 billion. He also notes other benefits:

It will give larger rewards for drugs that improve healthcare outcomes and smaller or no rewards for duplicative, "me-too" drugs that are medically insignificant. It also would eliminate incentives to engage in wasteful marketing activities. Prize fund rewards will be based on evidence that drugs actually work and work better than alternatives.

Those "me-too" drugs and the huge marketing efforts that have to be put behind them to get them used instead of similar products from competitors are further symptoms of the patent system's failure to promote true innovation. The present scheme still leaves the problem of how to decide when drugs work "better than alternatives," and how much to pay for them, but at least the field has been narrowed down, which should make judgements easier.

As with his previous proposal, Sanders' latest bill doesn't stand much chance of being realized in the current political climate. But it's good to hear a US senator framing the issue in terms of patent monopolies and their distorted pricing:

The cost of the prize fund would be considerably less than the cost of buying drugs at monopoly prices.

Once people recognize that patents (and copyright) are monopolies, with all the disadvantages and abuses that implies, they might want less of them.

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Do you have a video camera and untapped creative juices? There are more and more outlets for uploading your videos, and there are even people willing to pay you for your contributions. Here are just a few open video contests out there.

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Over the years, we've been really interested in various platforms for engaging folks to participate in all sorts of projects. We've pointed out cool prize contests such as the Netflix Prize, and generally, when there's a really interesting concept that seems to catch on, there are plenty of copycats ready to try their hand at reproducing success. Here are a bunch of open innovation marketplaces that have the same basic idea -- and there are plenty others -- but we're still waiting on one player to really stand out.

from the well-trained dept

If someone calls you up, claiming to be from Apple and telling you that you've won $10,000 for downloading the 10 billionth app in the iTunes App Store, you'd probably think it was a scam too. That's certainly what Gail Davis in the UK thought when it happened to her -- except that it actually turned out to be real. All I can say is kudos to Ms. Davis for recognizing just how unlikely the story was... and for then taking the second call and realizing it was actually true.

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

There are plenty of prizes to solve hard problems -- million dollar rewards for Millennium Prize Problems, etc. But there are also plenty of other problems (some with bigger prizes) that don't get as much attention. Also, it's not so easy to determine the winners sometimes. In any case, here are a few quick examples: